CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TRANSPORTATION
This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service
of the RAND Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LAW AND BUSINESS
Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Reports & Bookstore
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing
later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is
prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from
RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may
include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions
of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and
supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality
and objectivity.
Customized Learning
Potential Air Force Applications
Thomas Manacapilli, Edward O’Connell,
Cheryl Benard
Prepared for the United States Air Force
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
P R O J E CT A IR F O R C E
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under
Contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic
Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Manacapilli, Thomas.
Customized learning : potential Air Force applications / Thomas Manacapilli, Edward O'Connell, Cheryl
Benard.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8330-5061-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)
. United States. Air Force--Airmen—Training of—Evaluation. 2. United States. Air Force. Air Education
and Training Command--Evaluation. 3. Aeronautics, Military—Study and teaching—United States—
Evaluation. I. O'Connell, Edward. II. Benard, Cheryl, 1953- III. Title..
UG638.M318 2011
358.4'150973—dc22
2010046000
The R AND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2011 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it
is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.
Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND
documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking
permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2011 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Summary
Background
In January 2008, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) published a white paper
entitled “On Learning: The Future of Air Force Education and Training.” Under its concept of
precision learning, AETC envisions that
Learning is customized to learner needs and abilities and delivered across a spectrum of
live, virtual and constructive means using a variety of multi-media tools and modes. Learning is tailored to learners . . . by leveraging technology to deliver knowledge when, where
and how needed. (pp. 13–14)
Around the same time, the National Academy of Engineering identified personal learning as one of 14 major challenges of the 21st century. And in February 2009, AETC/A5/8/9
asked RAND to look at the concept of customized learning (the Air Force’s term for personalized learning) for application to Air Force training.
Motivation
The Air Force spends approximately $750 million per year on IST, plus an unknown amount
for on-the-job and other types of training. This training has arguably helped make the U.S. Air
Force the best air force in the world. However, current training methods may not be as efficient
and effective as emerging alternatives. This study looks at educational approaches that would
customize training to individual characteristics with the intent of minimizing the trainee’s
time in training, focusing the training on the trainee’s needs, and getting the trainee productive sooner, all leading to reduced costs.
Context
The Air Force brings in approximately 34,000 new recruits each year. An individual is recruited
and sent to a processing center where a job or job category is tentatively selected. The Air Force
next sends the recruit, depending on a number of availability factors, to basic military training (BMT). During BMT, the career field is finalized, and on graduation (after approximately
eight and one-half weeks), the student proceeds to the schoolhouse for job-specific training,
also called IST.
xi
xii
Customized Learning: Potential Air Force Applications
IST can last as long as two years or as little as six weeks, depending on the specialty. All
students in a particular course receive exactly the same training over exactly the same time.
The Air Force has an active program of on-the-job training and in-residence schools
for special training. The Air Force also teaches professional military education to officer and
enlisted personnel according to grade.
Analytic Approach
We approached the problem from three avenues:
1. We talked to experts in and out of the military.
2. We reviewed literature on personalized learning.
3. We reviewed meta-analyses on case studies of personalized learning and assessed some
contemporary models.
Understanding Customized Learning
The concept of personalized learning has a long history. There are two camps in the education community regarding this subject: the progressive movement dating back to John Dewey
(which includes personalized learning concepts) and the uniform approach (skill and drill).
Some research suggests that, in the absence of severe mental retardation, students tend to
learn in the same way but that everyone brings different predispositions and prior experience
to the learning situation. So, learning is not based only on common cognitive ability but is also
shaped by prior experience, unique skills, and individual talents. This leads to arguments for
more-personalized learning pedagogies allowing students to progress at their own pace, given
their prior experience, skills, and talents.
Other research suggests that students have learning styles that allow them to learn better
when the environment and teaching styles match their learning styles. Additionally, many
educators believe that there is a difference in how the millennial generation thinks, learns, and
processes information. There is no direct evidence to support this claim as of yet, only an intuitive feel that this technology-savvy generation is different.
In 2004, Coffield et al., of the Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC), a UK-based
organization, published an exhaustive report examining 71 learning styles from 2,800 references; the majority of studies were based on American research. The study categorized the 71
learning style theories into five families and then examined 13 styles across the five families in
depth. Each learning style is associated with a theory of use and an instrument for testing the
student to determine what style within the theory the student possesses. Table S.1 summarizes
the results of their study.
Only one of the learning styles satisfied all of the criteria identified as important for
proving the value of learning styles. This style, Allinson and Hayes, is more properly a tool
for classification or selection of management personnel than a true learning style. Four of the
styles met the study’s criteria for predictive validity—individual scores were correlated with
success in learning. Two of those styles belong to the family of constitutionally based learning
styles—they are based on attributes that individuals are born with and do not change. In both
Summary
xiii
Table S.1
Evaluation of Representative Learning Style Theories
Theory/Instrument
Family
Internal
Consistency
Test-Retest
Reliability
Construct
Validity
Predictive
Validity
Allinson and Hayes
Flexibly stable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apter
Stable personality
Yes
Yes
—
Yes
Dunn and Dunn
Constitutionally based
No
No
No
Yes
Entwistle
Learning approaches
Yes
—
Yes
No
Gregorc
Constitutionally based
No
No
No
Yes
Herrmann
Flexibly stable
—
Yes
Yes
—
Honey and Mumford
Flexibly stable
No
Yes
No
No
Jackson
Stable personality
—
—
—
—
Kolb
Flexibly stable
—
Yes
No
No
Myers-Briggs
Stable personality
Yes
Yes
No
No
Riding
Cognitive structures
No
No
No
No
Sternberg
Learning approaches
No
No
No
No
Vermunt
Learning approaches
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
SOURCE: Coffield et al., 2004a.
NOTE: Yes = criterion met; No = criterion not met; — = no evidence either way or issue still to be settled.
of the cases, though, the learning styles failed to meet the criteria of construct validity, which
measures how well test scores can be interpreted as measuring what they intend to measure.
Conclusions
Our literature review leads us to conclude that attention to learning styles has potential benefit
for the Air Force, but with limitations, and that the effectiveness of individualized teaching is
often greatly exaggerated. We recommend that the Air Force conduct some experiments with
Air Force vocational training before implementation across Air Force training is considered.
The use of learning style instruments does have positive impacts (self-awareness and metacognition), even when the case cannot be made as to why they would have impact.
Learning style feedback shows the student how to enhance his or her own learning, and
it fosters a discourse between student and teacher on how the student can improve in a course.
Customized learning increases the probability of creating lifelong learners. As individuals
discover their learning styles, they are motivated to use that knowledge. If they have had bad
experiences in the past, the new knowledge gives them a fresh point at which to reengage in
learning.
Attention to learning styles can be a catalyst for organizational and systemic change. New
and better pedagogies have not been an active pursuit or subject of study for the Air Force. The
Air Force needs an educational center of excellence for the study of new approaches to educa-
xiv
Customized Learning: Potential Air Force Applications
tion and training. During the course of this study, the Air Force stood up an office in AETC
for this purpose.
Learning styles can also provide a lexicon for dialogue between professional educators.
Implications
While the Air Force uses professional educators in some roles, it typically does not employ
professional educators as instructors, but rather uses subject-matter experts to teach courses in
initial skills and professional military education. Consequently, the majority of instructors do
not have the expertise or ability to adapt their teaching style to a learning style.
The Air Force can take steps to lessen these concerns. First, the Air Force could update
the Basic Instructor Course (BIC) with specific instruction on adapting teaching style to the
style of the learners. Second, the Air Force could add additional instructor continuing education courses for the entire length of an instructor’s tour. Third, the Air Force could hire educational mentors whose job would entail sitting in during instruction and constructively critiquing instructors on teaching effectiveness.
The Air Force operates a very structured IST process that requires each class of students
to start and end courses together. The same is true for professional military education. The Air
Force can run self-paced courses, as it did for some courses in the 1970s for initial skills training. We recommend that the Air Force perform an experiment on a self-paced initial skills
course.
The eight-hour instructional day is too restrictive and does not give course managers or
instructors the freedom to determine the best method or use of time to help students learn.
Customized learning does not have to be dependent on the instructor. Technology offers
solutions that have not existed in the past. Technological solutions—software that adapts to
the learner—can minimize the role of the instructor, thereby alleviating the need for professional educators. With appropriate technology, the instructor can take on the role of a coach
or mentor with expertise in the subject area but without the need for unique teaching skills.
Customized Learning Applied to Air Force 2.0
Developing a learner-centric philosophy is a key component of customized learning. It shifts
the relative importance from the process of transmitting information to the student to ensuring that the information is transmitted in a way that is best processed by the learner. It will
require the new learning organization to create alternate means of conveying information such
that the student can process information most effectively.
Customized learning will create new demands for an expanded knowledge base. Without argument, knowledge databases are critical to learning now and will be increasingly so
in the future. One solution is to take advantage of the millennial generation’s technological
literacy and use it to create the knowledge databases of the future. Today’s average instructor
is becoming increasingly technologically literate and, perhaps, could develop computer-based
instruction (CBI) and virtual world applications. Also, the software for CBI and virtual world
development is increasingly user friendly. The Air Force needs to take advantage of software
advances and a technologically literate force to develop the knowledge base of the future.
Summary
xv
Customized learning could increase the need for knowledge-on-demand systems. It may
be possible to move additional portions of IST into on-the-job training if knowledge systems
are available for the Airmen to tap. With this approach, in addition to learning at their own
pace and style, Airmen might also learn at a more propitious time.
Customized learning can improve education in the affective domain by making the
learner the focus of the training and by giving the learner more control over the education process. As the organization communicates value to the individual, the individual is more likely
to reciprocate and internalize the values of the organization.
The use of simulations can have a tremendous payoff. They provide an approach to learning that contrasts with the sterile environment of a lecture. They also provide users with a sense
of the environment they will encounter on the job. Simulations can challenge users with virtual problem solving and virtual games, thereby increasing interest in the field of study.
The literature suggests that customized learning approaches motivate students to be continuous learners. Already today, young Airmen know how to find knowledge through the
Internet. Most apply that ability to social networks and personal interests. It is a small step to
apply that ability to job tasks, especially among motivated learners.
Technology Is Key
This report describes a number of tools and systems illustrative of emerging technological
opportunities. For the Air Force, three insights are important: that new learning technologies
hold the promise of mitigating some of the challenges its training programs confront by allowing greater responsiveness to the individual’s learning style, prior knowledge, speed of learning,
capabilities, and interests; that a very large pool of applications is available to draw upon and
that these can also be adapted, or entirely new applications could be developed; but also that
these applications are tools, not complete solutions. Overreliance on new learning technologies
would not be a good idea.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Air Force take advantage of the new Advanced Learning Technology
Demonstrations that AETC has established to test these ideas before large-scale implementation. There is much hyperbole regarding technology and new pedagogies. The best way to separate reality from hyperbole is to test the ideas in a real-world environment.